TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to be a qualified doctor. The petitioner was under the impression that he would be adequately represented by his previous counsel. The various orders passed by the trial court are reflecting that the petitioner and his counsel were not diligent in the prosecution of the complaint. However, mere negligence either on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in prosecution of the complaint should not be a ground for not restoring the complaint. The petitioner cannot be allowed to be suffer due to the negligence of his previous counsel. The impugned order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the trial court is set aside - the complaint is ordered to be restored to its original number before the trial court subject to the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt for non-prosecution. The authorized representative of the petitioner also left the employment. The non appearance of the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional. The application is supported by the affidavit of the petitioner who is aged more than 65 years. 3. The respondent argued that the petitioner has filed the present leave petition after more than 02 years from the date of dismissal of the complaint without giving any cogent reason. 4. It appears that the petitioner was not properly informed by his previous counsel about the passing of the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 whereby the complaint was ordered to be dismissed in default as well as for non-prosecution. The petitioner cannot be punished for the negligence o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order had dismissed the complaint bearing CC no.22916/2016 filed by the petitioner in default as well as for non-prosecution. The impugned order is reproduced as under : Perusal of the record shows that none is appearing on behalf of complainant for the last three dates. Today also, none is responding on behalf of complainant despite repeated calls. From the above said facts, it may be concluded that complainant is not interested to pursue present complaint case hence present complaint case is dismissed in default as well as for non prosecution. 11. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner filed the present appeal to challenge the impugned order on the grounds that the petitioner was not being effectively repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not deliberate as he was assured by his counsel that he would be represented properly. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner, after citing various decisions passed by the Supreme Court and Coordinate Benches of this Court, prayed that the complaint bearing CC no.22916/2016 be restored. 13. The respondent advanced oral arguments and also submitted written submissions. In his preliminary submissions, the respondent argued that the petitioner was not being represented for about three and a half years either in person or through authorized representative/counsel/proxy counsel. The petitioner was directed to appear in person on 25.10.2016 vide order dated 28.09.2015 to advance arguments on the issue of jurisdiction for which the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S Infrastructure Limited V M/s Rajwant Singh Others, Criminal Appeal Nos.657-664/2023 decided on 01.03.2023; and the judgment of this Court in CRL.L.P. 172/2016 titled as Rajeev Kumar V Gagan Makhija decided on 07.08.2019. 14. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Koutons Retail India Ltd. V Pramod Prasad Gupta Anr., W.P. (Civil) No. 8917/2007 decided on 29.09.2008 observed as under:- 13. To my mind, this is also a case where the petitioner appears to have been a victim of the inaction, negligence and misdemeanor of its counsel, who has conducted himself in a very unprofessional manner in this case. The conduct of the counsel is also clear from the observations made by the Learned Labour Court in its orders. Furthermore, the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be adequately represented by his previous counsel. The various orders passed by the trial court are reflecting that the petitioner and his counsel were not diligent in the prosecution of the complaint. However, mere negligence either on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in prosecution of the complaint should not be a ground for not restoring the complaint. The petitioner cannot be allowed to be suffer due to the negligence of his previous counsel. 16. After considering all facts, the impugned order dated 07.12.2016 passed by the trial court is set aside and the complaint bearing CC no.22916/2016 titled as Dr. Alok Chopra V Dhruv Verma is ordered to be restored to its original number before the trial court subject to the cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
